There is some evidence that the consistent mention of the “Pause,” that obvious fact, is beginning to bother some of the climate consensus crowd. To wit, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy. Of course the EPA has had some really bad press lately, as the world watched a great spill of noxious yellow mine tailings, that we were told is extremely toxic to life on Earth, into a tributary of the great Colorado River that serves most of the American Southwest. The Navajo Tribe said they would be instituting a massive lawsuit, but we have heard nothing further about that, nor has the spread of the yellow mess made the major news, or perhaps I just missed it. Gina McCarthy stated, in the pages of The Hill, that:

America has come a long way in protecting public health and the environment over the past 45 years. Since 1970, we’ve cut air pollution by nearly 70 percent, while our economy has tripled in size. America’s environmental laws have provided a solid foundation for success, but they’re only part of the equation. Without resources to work hand in hand with state, local and tribal partners to enforce these laws, progress isn’t possible. Laws talk the talk, but enforcement walks the walk.

When rules under the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other laws are not followed, people suffer. Neighborhoods become polluted, livelihoods become threatened and the health of kids and families are put at risk.

Enforcement programs keep dangerous illegal activity in check. They hold violators accountable and deter bad actors. They level the playing field for businesses that play by the rules. And most of all, they provide security and protection to people across America, who depend on clean air, water and land to live healthy, productive lives.

This is probably what McCarthy believes. She is all for enforcement, big enforcement. Strong standards are a key step, and holding everyone accountable allows the EPA to protect American lives and especially the children (it’s always asthma). But I take it as a bit of self-justification from an agency under fire.

The problem is that the EPA has taken the original mandate of the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which Congress didn’t bother to define, as their authority to grab for power and control of ever more of America. They have been slapped down by the courts over and over, but it doesn’t seem to bother them at all. They issue immense fines, preferably in the billions, because the threat of enormous fines makes people and businesses surrender quickly. Not content with just cleaning up smog, they have turned to fine particulates, going so far as attempting to regulate farm dust, which may seem possible for city apartment dwellers, but for anyone who had ever been near a farm—is an absurdity.

The EPA attempt to grab control of the drip from your downspouts as a part of the “navigable waters of the United States” has been halted by the courts, but ‘overreach’ is in their blood. The pictures that accompany the news from the agency usually feature smokestacks which are belching (probably water vapor) but give the impression of noxious pollutants.

Carbon Dioxide remains a pollutant to the EPA, but for the rest of us (excluding Barack Obama and John Kerry) it remains plant food, one of the basic necessities for almost all life on Earth. Increasing levels of CO2 have increased crop yields by at least 10–15 percent, and are good for humankind as well as the natural world, for an acre of land that is not used for crops is left for nature. Between 1990 and 2011 – 13, although population increased by 31% to 7.1 billion, available food supplies have increased by 44%. This is good news that your probably didn’t hear.

I don’t believe that the EPA has saved a single life from pollution, nor kept a single child from contracting asthma (doctors don’t know the cause). Their overreach is not only excessive, but damaging to the people and the economy. I don’t believe that the agency needs a swat team of their very own. They need to produce the science that they use to promulgate their rules and regulations, and establish that they are actually a needed bureaucracy, rather than an agency out for self-serving power grabs. And they need to prove that there is some reason why they should continue to exist.